Talk:Four Great Inventions

Invention of Movable type printing, Ceramic, Wooden, and Metal forms

I'm not sure why this was absent, but I added the information on movable type printing. All of the information I used are located in the wiki-linked articles for Shen Kuo, Bi Sheng, Wang Zhen, and Hua Sui.--PericlesofAthens 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gunpowder

I just added further information on gunpowder in the lead for the 'Historical Debate' section. Have a look.--PericlesofAthens 15:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Special?

This page is quite unsubtly ridden with contentious statements and biases implying some simple devices first discovered by the Chinese have had a "far-ranging global impact" when in fact it is debatable whether some of these technologies were invented independently elsewhere. It is for this reason I ask for the Francis Bacon quote to be removed from the context it appears; I ask for it to be moved to the "Historical Debate" section. I don't deny China played a great part in history (albeit in East Asia) but the Chinese are so proud of these achievements that its slightly ridiculous (I just cant help but think there could be some spin doctoring on the part of the CPC), the Romans and Greeks contributed more to the modern world then the Chinese could ever hoped to have but they don’t go on about it all the time, the Islamic World is how the Renaissance in Europe started in addition to this they invented/discovered distillation, purified gunpowder, the worlds first programmable robot and so much else, but there isn’t a page called "The 100 Great Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age", its just a modest page titled "Inventions in the Muslim world" the Indians invented the number system we use and zero which have had profound implications for mathematics ever since yet that not always highlighted so therefore why are the Chinese somehow special? I am not a racist or a Nazi I just think this over-glorification of rudimentary Chinese inventions is unjust and slightly bigoted. Be proud of your culture, I don’t deny anyone the right to that, but don’t over-emphasise it and deny contributions made by other peoples. Smarred Wolet 00:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the page is now balanced and appropriate. It does not claim that there was a unilateral flow of knowledge from China to the rest of the world. However, it is undeniable that those technologies appeared and were used first in China. If you have any specific issues you want addressed, please let me know. thanks --lk 01:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem that the Chinese were competing with anyone. They just happen to have developed a lot of technology on their own, which is something every culture has done. The four great inventions term wasn't even invented by a Chinese. There are arrogant people of every ethnic/cultural background who claim this and that, and those type of attitudes are inevitable but it can be largely ignored. Not everyone of that particular ethnic/cultural background claims such a chauvinistic mentality.

Let me explain something about the Chinese character. They like lists. They like to talk about the 4 lovely ladies of ancient china, or the 8 beautiful views of Hung mountain, or the 10 ... you get my point. Although the list of 4 great inventions may not have been Chinese to start with, they have taken to it like ducks to water. It doesn't have to do with putting down anyone else. It's just like talking about the winner of the last soccer World cup, it's just something to talk about.

Then there isn't anything wrong with this particular type of list. It can be edit or change in a way to reflect more accuracy. Or dismissed as like you say, just something to talk about.User:guess4life 10:04 17 November 2007

At first, this page appeared to be a debate over the historical claims and accuracy of the article, but then it went further into claims of bigotry and nationalistic pride, which is suspected but not entirely accountable.

I think I know why the last part of my statement was deleted, but it was just a response to the statement of how the Romans and Greeks made more contributions and the achievements of the Muslims and Hindus. It is true that the Jewish people and their literature deserves more credit for changing the world for the better. Their role in history is so enormous compared with their numbers. Even though the Chinese were not very isolated, they and the peoples of the East in general, have remarkably been thriving and survived quite well by themselves for a long time. It's quite hard to say how well Western or Muslim societies and the entire world would have fare without the Jews. There aren't that many cultures where the Bible or Koran isn't a big influential part of it. This statement sounds quite bigoted, but it is true to a very large extent. Although, it should be deleted because wikipedia is not a forum, but if that's the case so should about half of the statements on this talk page. User:guess4life 10:03 17 November 2007

There is also the issue of what identifies a person as being Chinese. Oh the page of Chinese people, the information was quite vague, and not every Chinese views themselves as being Han. How far can one go to claim this or that being Chinese, the place it was invented in, the national/ethnic identity of the inventor, the inspirations and originality made by the culture, atittudes adopted by the people,values of a particular civilization, etc. User:guess4life 10:27 17 November 2007

This discussion page should be focused on the content of the article, not on what European Jews and Middle Eastern Muslims have contributed (it really has nothing to do with this article). Please, stay on topic! We're not here to present our own personal views; we're here to present the views of scholarly authorities.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, vandalism from hell

I can't believe this egregious vandalism by 74.172.15.138 has gone by unnoticed by everyone since February 12. It is now April 2. Shameful. I just put this page on my watch list to monitor further vandalism. This article is quite a pathetic mess, and quite honestly, I don't feel like taking the time to clean it up and restoring it, simply to humor myself by waiting and seeing just how long it will take another editor to realize that this article has been 'kaput' since February 12. Again, I am shocked that I am the first to notice this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Francis Bacon Quote

It seems that the Bacon quote is a magnet for edit disputes. It's gone back and forth several times over the past 2 years. I think we should have a debate about it and decide how and if it should be included in the article: lk (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Support The quote is clearly relevant in that it shows the effect that these inventions had. It does not matter whether Bacon knew about their Chinese origins, or even if they were independently invented in Europe, the quote illustrates the effect these technologies had on the medieval world. lk (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Beijing Olympics opening ceremony

Since this is the basis of the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony, lots of references should be available to expand it past Needham. 70.55.200.185 (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

History of the classification

This article should cover the history of the designation. I'm told Needham was the originator of the recognition of these as a big four. That fact needs to be documented and put in the article. Similarly, if the Bacon quote is in the article, but doesn't reflect a recognition by him that they came somehow from China, that should be mentioned. Mark Foskey (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC) lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.81.200 (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Most dates in this article are not ancient. They are medieval. Suggest changing the title of this page to Great Inventions of ancient and medieval China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.205.148 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"ancient" China

This is misleading. These are known as the Four Great Inventions in Chinese, and the article should probably be called Four Great Inventions (China), seeing as out of the four, only one (paper) was actually made in Chinese antiquity, while the other three date to the medieval period. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but might as well request it to be moved to Four Great Inventions, since it already redirects to this article. Cold Season (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just requested it to be moved to "Four Great Inventions" as uncontroversial here... in case someone objects. Cold Season (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Revisions to Origins section

Checking the quotes in the footnotes, I found that they did not refer to "four" inventions, nor did any of them call the inventions "great." I adjusted the text to reflect this, and made other adjustments to the lede. In light of this finding, I'm not sure that the rest of the article is useful. Perhaps it should be merged into List of Chinese inventions, though I do not feel strongly enough about it to start the process. ch (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My recent partial revert

I just made a partial revert of 2 edits:[1]

Firstly, china.org.cn is an official Chinese government information site published under the auspices of the State Council Information Office, and hence is a reliable source. See [2]

Second, the Beijing Review article is not an editorial expressing their own opinion, rather it is a report of the opinion of Chinese scholars. Hence, just like when the New York Times reports on the opinions on various economists, we attribute the opinion to the economists, citing the New York Times article, instead of attributing the opinion to the NYT. LK (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion and explaining your reasoning so clearly. On the one hand, I respect the work that you and other editors have put into this article, which is impressive in its appearance and content. On the other hand, there seems to be a confusion about what is a Reliable Source. The policy article Wikipedia: No original research requires that editors "rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."

Maybe part of the problem is that "reliable" means one thing in everyday talk and another in Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy requires us to avoid WP:Tertiary sources, which means general textbooks, encyclopedias, and books which do not use primary sources but themselves rely on secondary sources. The principle is to get a "reliable source," that is, a Secondary source which is based on an expert's evaluation and synthesis of primary sources. In this required sense, Beijing Review is not a reliable source.

The policy article continues, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So technically we should also remove the material in the Origins section which rely directly on Primary sources, but my own feeling is that these are OK as long as we don't draw conclusions from them, especially that they somehow established the concept "Four Great Inventions," which they clearly don't.

So I would like to change back the language in the lede paragraph. First, Beijing Review is not a "reliable" or secondary source in the Wikipedia sense; in any case it reports only one person, not "scholars" (in the plural); and there is no way to know whether the Vice Director is a scholar in any case. Second, a website, no matter whether it is sponsored by the government, is not a reliable source if it doesn't tell us what sources it uses -- it's a tertiary source, like a textbook or an encyclopedia.

BTW, my suspicion is that the reference in the Beijing Review article to Joseph Edkins actually comes from this very Wikipedia article, an example of circular sourcing. My suspicion is that there was no reliable source for the concept "Four Great Inventions" before quite recently. I see that a number of experienced editors have put in a lot of work so the article should not be completely merged into List of Chinese inventions. But it would be extremely helpful for its believability to find a reliable source rather than doing primary research. For instance, did Needham say, in so many words, "Four Great Chinese Inventions" or was he, like Bacon, Marx, and Edkins, simply acknowledging as a generalization the obvious fact that Chinese were great inventors? It is also disappointing to see that the Beijing Review even today feels the need to give a Western source, even such a weak one as Edkins, as if this made the idea legitimate (and besides, he didn't even say it!).

Cheers ch (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that the conventional list (paper, printing, compass, gunpowder) of the four great inventions have been well known since at least the middle of the 20th century. For example, in books from the later half of the 20th century, they treat the list as common knowledge, generally accepted, and just part of the literature. E.g. see [3], [4], [5], [6]. I haven't been able to track down where and when the list was codified, and the appellation 'great' attached, but I suspect it was from the work of Needham, a great Sinophile and researcher on the science and technology of ancient China. LK (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Origins

I haven't been able to track down anything in Needham yet, the earliest mention I can find of the four inventions is in this book: Oriental and occidental culture : an interpretation, by Maurice Parmelee (1882-1969), Published: London : Williams and Norgate, 1929. On page 80 he writes: "China played an important part in four inventions which had a large share in the making of modern civilization—namely, paper, printing, gunpowder, and the compass."[7] There is also a Chinese book by Ning Huang from 1954 which is titled 中國四大發明 (Zhongguo si da fa ming, Four great inventions of China).[8], I haven't been able to locate any more information about this book. LK (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Four Great Inventions of China

1:Houfeng seismograph,it was invented by Zhang Heng for measuring directions of earthquakes. 2:The Celestial Globe,it was useful for the astronomical development in China. 3:Shenzhou V,It was China's first manned spacecraft in 2003 and was sucessfully laubnched. 4:The Three Gorges project:It is the largest water control project in the world.It benefits the region in terms of flood control,power generation and transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.247.131.154 (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Four Great Inventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070409061805/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26519.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26519.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828042215/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26504.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26504.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018032458/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26514.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26514.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825000639/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26509.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26509.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Four Great Inventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106073725/http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/newsletters_11.php to http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/newsletters_11.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Reference error

Hi! Reference number 17 is listed as "Kreutz, p. 373", but this is the only place in the entire article/source list that mentions the name "Kreutz". How am I supposed to know which book/publication this is referring to? Could anyone please add the appropriate source to the source list? Bambi'nin annesi (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That seems to have come from this edit. I've fixed it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That's great! Thank you so much! Bambi'nin annesi (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Just WP:WikiGnomeing. See also the History of the compass article. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Political Relevance

Why is there no discussion about the political relevance of this topic? It is clear that the “Four Great Inventions” is a politically sensitive topic in a way that some random list of US or European inventions would never be. That context should form a greater part of the article, otherwise people will ask why it exists (as I see people have).

there are reports from China of government actions against those who question these inventions and their importance: https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3024372/chinese-teacher-suspended-belittling-great-inventions-online (I’m posting a link to SCMP since it is widely regarded as very aligned with the CCP, and thus can’t be accused of having an anti-China stance. It’s a story that illustrates the political relevance of this topic; not somehow canonical.) 61.69.234.196 (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This article as an argument for WP unreliability

A fake quote attributed to Karl Marx and contradicted by Marx's own writings has been removed after a screenshot of it was posted to X (formerly Twitter) citing this quote as an argument against Wikipedia: "some of the worst source work I've ever seen on virtually all its pages that are primarily historical/political rather than scientific/mathematic." (see below link). A general review of content accuracy and source verification is in order.

https://twitter.com/realerjoetalley/status/1759718926328508569 RightQuark (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it pretty worrisome that you've essentially cited X for a claim? Remsense诉 07:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope, not too worried about incorrect claims on a Talk page, more worried about the content of the actual article. RightQuark (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Marx Quote

somebody pointed out the iffy sourcing of the Marx Quote and claimed it was fabricated but it looks like the original quote (now seemingly removed) can be found here:

https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1861/economic/ch35.htm

Not sure if anyone wants to address that. Including the quote seemed unnecessary in the article, but it wasn't fake and can be cited properly. 2600:1702:5B52:850:7816:9FF:E85D:AC5F (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to post this, as I also wasn't sure why @RightQuark reached the conclusion that it was a "fake Marx quote". Remsense诉 07:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Someone on twitter said so and nobody else bothered to check sources 2600:1702:5B52:850:7816:9FF:E85D:AC5F (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all, I did check the sources which initially appeared to support the argument on X. Given the virality, I withdrew the poorly-sourced line in the article with the intent of researching further before validating/invalidating the claim. You've beaten me to the answer and you should take pride in that. Cheers. RightQuark (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

We've all been there, cheers! Remsense诉 08:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This article feels like a stub

I feel like this has mostly content on how to make gunpowder, and not a lot on where it was made and what major military victories it was use in. This could just be me, but if it is possible I would like more context about what I mentioned to be added.

(The reason I am not editing it myself is because I currently I do not have experience.) Wasabi-The-LoreMaster (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)